Renewable EnergyDiscussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

- - GM Patent for Plasma ignition and engine back in 1975 that runs VERY lean fuel mixtures. I'm sure one day when the planet gets close to sapping its last barrels of oil they will release a 'new' car and say "Plasma technology people!!!" and the dopey brainwashed masses will oohhh and ahh and rush to the nearest dealership. Plasma jet ignition engine and method

Almost EVERY major auto manufacturer has a patent for plasma jet ignitions.

The latest was in the last couple years I found for Mazda for a rotary with
a plasma ignitor "plug" too.

But, I did originate the plasma effect coming from the same power capacitor
used with a CDI WITHOUT the need for a secondary power supply.

I also have been able to make it work with MSD units that others couldn't
and I show an example of this in the videos. The MSD's have choppers so
the cap isn't connected steadily to the primary of the ignition coil and
diode but I got it to work with the way I was switching it. Not really sure
why others couldn't get it to work but I show what I did and what unit
I used.

Hi there Aaron,
Thanks for putting together something like this . I have a little 4wheeler motorbike that chews spark plugs all the time (cheap cdi ) so this might be a good time to try some experiments in this area.I haven't got a copy yet but am going to get a copy when i can .cheers Jason

Quite a few actually and I haven't even promoted it yet. It is posted in
this forum and I told some affiliates that is about it. Some affiliates are
posting it around the forum bit by bit.

It will be sent to newsletter lists next week, then a lot of people will know
about it.

This is the type of response I'm getting:

"Thank you for Ignition Secrets, I have consumed all materials AND bonuses within hours of immediate download and am already building my own equipment. Please deny me the right for a refund (as I have already received incomparable value and insight) and release me from the need to wait 70 freaking days for the other bonuses.

Pat Balemi
Creative Revolutionist. New Zealand.

PS. You may use my name and testimony in promotions of this material as you see fit. "

I was even contacted by a senior engineer at one of the largest
auto manufacturers in the world - he was a bit skeptical then I sent him
the patents owned by his own company relating to a variation of the
plasma type ignitions! He probably won't be sleeping for a while.

I want to answer a few things that have been asked or have come up
in one way or another.

Q: Am I claiming to have invented the plasma ignition?
A: No, I never have. I invented my method of creating the plasma without
the need of a secondary power supply, only needing 2 points (gap), etc...
That is what I refer to as the Murakami Ignition because that is exactly
what it is - I am the sole inventor of it. Anyone claiming that I am trying
to take credit for inventing the very concept of a plasma ignition system
is simply spreading misinformation and cannot be trusted. This forum has
record of all of this and not once have I ever claimed to have invented
plasma ignitions.

Comment: There are some that have tried to apply my method to off the
shelf MSD's and couldn't get it to work. I was told that the cap in the MSD
is chopped, which of course it is but was told that the cap isn't in contact
with the primary long enough. Well, it worked with every CDI and MSD I tried
and in Ignition Secrets, I give a recommendation for a very inexpensive
MSD unit that has worked perfectly with many tests, etc...
I give the exact circuit I used to trigger it with no problems. I still do
not know why others couldn't get it to work - follow my directions in
the book and videos and you'll get the same successful results I got.

Comment: Someone that is convinced they are an expert on my own
experiments thinks that my method won't work on a car with a distributor.
Well, little do they know that plasma ignition systems have already been
sold for a while that send the plasma through a distributor and it works,
period. Skeptics can utilize bypass mode, which I address in the bonus
package later on - and that is just one small part of the bonus package.

Q: Is Clickbank a scam?
A: No, Clickbank is one of the most respected
online companies that helps digital publishers offer their content with a
network of thousands of affiliates. I have used them for several years and
am very happy with them. There are some people that use Clickbank as
their platform to scam people unfortunately but it is easy to spot them.
When you see claims that you'll get off the grid for a couple hundred dollars
or will have some mysterious Tesla magnetic motor that will run itself and
make your power bill disappear, well, those are all scams. Ignition Secrets
is a very legitimate book and video series that offers what it claims and
is backed by thousands of hours of experiments conducted with my own
two hands. And there are many members here that have a lot of experience
with all kinds of variations of the plasma ignition systems. It works, it does
what is claimed.

Q: Can't I just learn how to do all of this from this forum?
A: Yes, that is what this forum is for. However, there is so much
information dealing with plasma ignitions, it is just
very, very time consuming - I don't know how many people have asked
me over the last few years to just make it easy for them.
If it took 100 hours to pour through thousands of posts, wondering what
parts to buy, etc..., you'd be getting off lucky and if so, at $37 retail,
your time would be worth 37 cents per hour. Ignition Secrets is the
best bet that anyone has that wants to zip thru the maze in a short
period of time.

There are some other things I'll add to the same package when I can.
All the fundamentals are there but I will add more - anyone that purchased
the package will get any add on's, etc... for no extra charge of course.

Brisk Yttrium non-resistor triple electrode plugs are showing to possibly be
the best off the shelf plug you can get. They are about $8 each.
I would just leave the ground electrodes and not make a surface gap plug.
Tests are done with the stock configuration.

The estimates are 20,000 miles with the plasma ignition that was tested. 20,000
miles is quite a bit more than just a couple thousand if even that. $8 per
plug is nothing if they last that long with the plasma ignition.

I will post details of these tests when I can but this is what I'd recommend
for a plug to use for plasma ignitions at the moment. Maybe there are better
ones but this is what appears to be the best for now.

Hi Aaron,
I just want to ask you if you explain something in your book about a video you made some time ago about the "implosion spark". You shown in a video that a spark can be exothermic or endothermic.

Have you written something about this phenomenon in the book? If not, are you planning to write about it?

Hi Aaron,
I just want to ask you if you explain something in your book about a video you made some time ago about the "implosion spark". You shown in a video that a spark can be exothermic or endothermic.

Have you written something about this phenomenon in the book? If not, are you planning to write about it?

The plasma ignition will explode water and the molecules reform shrinking
in volume. It is the same thing that happens when HHO is burned.

The NASA explanation on the plasma ignition is that there are thermionic
emissions and those are used by molecules to reform and shrink in volume.

It is helpful to have a larger plasma blast in order to project the plasma
away from the plug and a large enough magnetic field will launch that
plasma off of a plug.

Even without launching it off of a plug and it stays at the gap, when
used to burn regular carbon based fuel air mixes, more of it burns.

The NH3 fuel on demand concept addresses the point of preventing a
reformation so that true thermal combustive energy can be gained without
it simply reforming and shrinking in volume.

Maybe I have formulated wrong the question. I mean if you explain something about the circuitry and/or the mechanism to mimic the electrical endothermic discharge. You made a video showing it, and the link I have just posted is the other only (?) that I know there is on the net.

I don't have the schematics because the guy hasn't post them.
A lot of people have asked to the guy for the schematics because he performs a series of very interesting experiments that nowadays, after 2 years he posted the videos, I don't know almost nothing about how to replicate a few of his tests.
Others yes (I know, but he only posted in the video the schematic for 1 experiment).

That test was with a basic plasma ignition circuit. I just fitted a copper
tube over the spark plug threads - ambient air inside with that piece of
paper - one burst it sucks the paper to it, the next it pushes it away.

Are you testing your circuit on any engines now ? You hear of folks claiming in their videos of running lawnmowers and stuff on plasma ignition. Can't tell from the vid's. Have you achieved anything like this. Others say that there engines fire on 100% water but still fart and splutter along. Are we still at this stage or have you got engines to stabilize? I got a hold of a small 2 stroke chainsaw engine for experimenting on. I was going to use it for a hho project but if we can bypass making an electrolizer that would be great.

I am writing this so I don't forget - What if an engine did splutter on 100% water ad we added hho into the system also. Would it burn easier then ? I dunno I'm just thinking.

I have used it on multiple engines - the current one is an engine I machined
for testing the ignition and otherwise.

The ONLY 100% water powered engines that are duplicatable are ones
where people have a reservoir of HHO premade and the engine runs until
there is not enough HHO to keep the reservoir filled. So any engine
can run on "water" this way but it serves no practical purpose.

Not that you said I made claims but I do want to state that I am not
making claims to run an engine totally on water. I think the best course
if for people get more educated that the plasma ignition is a reality
(most people outside of the free energy forums) and apply them
in practical situations - increased gas mileage, etc... and to just simply
learn to how make it work.

For water fuel - check out the ionization water fuel thread and and
the none-electrolytic water splitting thread. It is what to do with water
that makes a difference and not just using plain water. That is where I
think focus should be, just my opinion.

Hi Arron,
I like the book and i am glad that you started with some basic stuff. I really did need a refresher on those basics. I hope to be able to put this to good use. I may have some questions but i want to read the book one more time first.

I am curious about what i did not see in some of your videos. I am hoping you could explain what i am seeing, or not seeing.

It appears that during some of your filming the plasma spark is not visible. I can still hear the pop of the spark, but maybe out of 10 pops i only see maybe 5 or 6 light flashes.

Here are a couple of examples

Genesis video time 17:40 -17:59.
The spark looks to get small and then move across the table

And in Peter's video time 5:30 - 6:00
The same strange effect light disappears and moves across the table. At least how it looks to me.

I have been experimenting with a professionally built plasma ignition box for the last week.
I have a programmable engine management system where I can alter all manner of spark and fuel.
I have installed the box and the spark is very impressive.
I have increased the spark gap to 2mm, I have played around with fuel maps to see whether it has helped the lean burn limit. I have tested the fuel economy.

Guess what. NO CHANGE.

It does confirm the theory that once you have enough spark, more spark isn't going to do any more.

Whilst I have not put it on a dyno yet, the low end performance of the engine has experienced no noticible change.

Even I thought it would give some benefit, but this ""plasma spark"" is not doing what we were hoping for. Its a fantasy based on visual effects and hope, but in reality is of no great benefit.

I have been experimenting with a professionally built plasma ignition box for the last week.
I have a programmable engine management system where I can alter all manner of spark and fuel.
I have installed the box and the spark is very impressive.
I have increased the spark gap to 2mm, I have played around with fuel maps to see whether it has helped the lean burn limit. I have tested the fuel economy.

Guess what. NO CHANGE.

It does confirm the theory that once you have enough spark, more spark isn't going to do any more.

Whilst I have not put it on a dyno yet, the low end performance of the engine has experienced no noticible change.

Even I thought it would give some benefit, but this ""plasma spark"" is not doing what we were hoping for. Its a fantasy based on visual effects and hope, but in reality is of no great benefit.

My suggestion is that you need to do is to write to the company you
purchased it from and describe everything in detail what you are doing.

2mm gap is too much in my opinion. That is ok for open air tests but
you are going to strain your ignition coil that initiates the plasma in a
combustion chamber.

The "theory" that more spark isn't better is a false connection to the
plasma because it isn't a spark. The plasma plume is able to dissociate
the hydrocarbon on contact as well as the moisture by pure rugged
high speed current as well as photodissociation - almost everything you
know about the sparks do not apply to the plasma, there is no comparison.

There are dyno tests that prove conclusively that the plasma ignition
increases power for the same amount of fuel - it is pretty much
indisputable.

And I would suggest you go research the NASA, SAE and other highly
credible documentation and studies showing that the plasma increases
the lean burn limit - the ONLY way it can do that is if the plasma is able
to release more power from the fuel, period. This is pretty much
indisputable as well. AND, by extending the lean burn limit, that means
that the 14.7:1 ratio theory is THROWN OUT THE WINDOW as some
law that can't be violated, which is ridiculous because that only applies
to SPARK ignitions. What this shows clearly is that the plasma is a
completely different ballgame than spark ignition and is far from just a
light show.

The only fantasy is your own experience and how you use it, which nobody
else can guarantee. Again, you should be communicating with the
company you purchased your plasma ignition from to seek their advice
instead of throwing mud at the wall and seeing what sticks (i.e...
arbitrarily changing the fuel maps, etc...)

I have been experimenting with a professionally built plasma ignition box for the last week.
I have a programmable engine management system where I can alter all manner of spark and fuel.
I have installed the box and the spark is very impressive.
I have increased the spark gap to 2mm, I have played around with fuel maps to see whether it has helped the lean burn limit. I have tested the fuel economy.

Guess what. NO CHANGE.

It does confirm the theory that once you have enough spark, more spark isn't going to do any more.

Whilst I have not put it on a dyno yet, the low end performance of the engine has experienced no noticeable change.

Even I thought it would give some benefit, but this ""plasma spark"" is not doing what we were hoping for. Its a fantasy based on visual effects and hope, but in reality is of no great benefit.

Dear Turbotrana,

Thanks for posting your test results. All empirical data is welcome. Your results are quite surprising, as they are totally opposite of what Aaron and I have consistently seen. Our very first tests in September of 2008 on a lawn mower were shown on YouTube. We were able to run the engine at full speed with the needle valve (main fuel jet) completely shut. The carburetor was providing all of the fuel necessary to run the engine with just the idle jet open. The exhaust temperatures were also significantly lower than normal. Unfortunately, we were not able to continue our experiments at that time due to the economic downturn.

I don't question your test results because I haven't seen your raw data. But I do question your conclusion that the plasma spark is "a fantasy based on visual effects and hope, but in reality is of no great benefit". This is simply not true, as many others have seen both power and mileage increases with plasma ignition systems.

I also question your willingness to draw such a sweepingly negative appraisal of the technology after only one set of tests. It seems premature and unwarranted. Personally, I believe your test results are the anomaly, and not the other way around.

I was hoping that I was doing something wrong as I really wanted to see some benefits.

But my observation is much the same as David Vizard who has written alot about engines and tuning

From an article written by David Vizard on GoFastNews.com,

""To burn the charge of air and fuel as effectively as possible means delivering as much energy to the plug as possible up to the point of overkill. The question here is what is totally sufficient and where does overkill start? I have done a lot of ignition testing in my time and in almost every instance it seems that a bigger, fatter more aggressive spark produces better ignition. Sure I have come across some notable exceptions here. Two that come to mind are the ‘A’ Series Mini engine that powered the original Mini Cooper and the big block Chevy with a certain type of factory head (casting number escapes me for the moment but if you are into real high performance you are unlikely to use them). In both these instances I found that at first the combustion got better as the spark got better but after a point not that far up the scale in terms of spark technology and delivery all gains topped out. On the Mini engine it seemed that once we had a good strong spark that even lightening bolts would show no improvement. On the particular engine involved we went all the way to about 21/1 fuel air ratio’s before any sign of a lean misfire was experienced. But that’s not the norm it would seem – especially for the modern multi valve engines with limited mixture motion and a centrally located spark plug. ""

I am sure you had positive results with the lawnmower as the spark was probably weak to start off with. But it seems that the modern automotive inductive ignition system can produce sufficient spark.

Maybe the plasma will excell in other areas in the top end RPM. I wish I was wrong but my experience (25yrs) building and tuning engines, indicates I am probably not.